Minister says "we must deceive our own supporters"

Posted: Mon 29 Jun 2009 6 58 am

There is a rather excellent piece in the Sunday Times today about Brown and his constant lying on spending that is well worth a read. Most tellingly in it though is the following quote from an unnamed minister about the real driver behind the entirely stupid dividing "line of cuts vs cuts investment" (my emphasis added)

We donâ€™t care if the commentators or the economists turn against us... This is all about shoring up the base in the northern heart-lands, which we lost in the European elections. We donâ€™t want or need them to understand the nuance of the argument. We just want them to hate the Tories again."

Do they really hold the intelligence of their own core-vote in such contempt that they'd even admit their intention is to deceive them?

Like I and many others have said before, the next election is not about "cuts vs investment", it's about Tory honesty on what needs to be done, against Labour deception about what they too know needs to be done.

http://dizzythinks.net/2009/06/minister-says-we-must-deceive-our-own.html

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 325

Quote:

Do they really hold the intelligence of their own core-vote in such contempt that they'd even admit their intention is to deceive them?

Yes.

It might help if they decided to be positive about themselves rather then just carping on about everyone else.

Posted: Mon 29 Jun 2009 6 08 pm

Clearlyt they know a voter would have to be half-witted to support them. So of course they hold their supporters in contempt! Laughing

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 325

Bestbear wrote:

Clearly they know a voter would have to be half-witted to support them. So of course they hold their supporters in contempt! Laughing

No more half-witted then Tory voters in 1997 really.

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 9 09 am

That is possibly true. I can say that with some smugness, as I have already admitted voting Labour - for the one and only time in my life, and because it would have made no difference at all in this constituency - in 1997.

I regretted it before 1998 was out! Laughing

The Major government had enough flaws to make one glad to see the back of them all - but once we saw the mendacious Labour Party in full flower they seemed, in retrospect, to be as honest as the day is long, and fairly competent, too. And when it comes to "sleaze" ....... Rolling Eyes

Let us call to remembrance the golden economic legacy the Major Tories left for Labour to fritter away! The ruin of the Labour years will still be a burden on our great grand-children!

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

Let us call to remembrance the golden economic legacy the Major Tories left for Labour to fritter away! The ruin of the Labour years will still be a burden on our great grand-children!

We should note in passing that part of the economic legacy was not quite so golden, the excessive personal debt which is a significant part of our current unbalance is not merely a product of the last 10 years but in large part is itself a legacy of the rampant individualistic consumerism of the '80s.

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 9 34 am

The public finances, TJ! Not the public's finances!

In any case, - as I recall - the banks were not handing out money like candy to the children back then. I remember this very well.

Being a trend-setting sort of Bear, in 1988 I wanted to let my house and buy another near my workplace to live in. This would have been entirely prudent, sensible and affordable .... but no lender would even consider financing this premature "buy-to-let" arrangement.

So I find myself unable to agree with you

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

The public finances, TJ! Not the public's finances!

In any case, - as I recall - the banks were not handing out money like candy to the children back then. I remember this very well.

Being a trend-setting sort of Bear, in 1988 I wanted to let my house and buy another near my workplace to live in. This would have been entirely prudent, sensible and affordable .... but no lender would even consider financing this premature "buy-to-let" arrangement.

So I find myself unable to agree with you

Sorry, I forgot, there were no economic problems at all before 1997.

Of course Dr. Brown has screwed over our economy massively, especially through his astoundingly bad treatment of the public finances (upon which I have commented constantly)...but there are also private finances which are also incredibly damaging to our position and excess debt, and in this case (which I personally suspect feeds mutually with lack of concern over public debt) it started well before 1997.

Just because Dr. Brown was terrible does not mean that all of his predecessors were perfect - unless one is a blinded partisan hack, I suppose.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

tjwmason wrote:

Just because Dr. Brown was terrible does not mean that all of his predecessors were perfect - unless one is a blinded partisan hack, I suppose.

Perish the thought!!! Wink

Spartacus

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 12 45 pm

Perhaps you are too young to remember the huge feel-good factor we had sometime about then, TJ? Lawson was chancellor at the time. I remember travelling to London by train one day, looking out of the window and suddenly emitting a contented sigh. It really did seem good!

And Lawson famously balanced the budget!

Of course there were economic problems before 1997! Did I even hint that there were not? We had Black Wednesday and its aftermath, but the fact remains that the Major government got the public finances back into apple-pie order, just in time for these damnable progressives to spend the next eleven years bringing us to virtual ruin.

Had we had a Tory government all this time we would still have had the banking crisis "that started in America", but I am confident that we would not also have the even greater problem of crushing public debt and a hugely bloated public sector.

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 1 14 pm

I have to side with BB here.

There are always going to be economic problems of one sort or another, from personal debt to child poverty. You can't solve every problem. You can't legislate to stop Mr Smith running 10 credit cards to their maximum.

But the way in which Labour has run the economy over the last 12 years was always going to lead us to where we are now. No peacetime government has ever run up public debt to such levels before.

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

Perhaps you are too young to remember the huge feel-good factor we had sometime about then, TJ? Lawson was chancellor at the time. I remember travelling to London by train one day, looking out of the window and suddenly emitting a contented sigh. It really did seem good!

And Lawson famously balanced the budget!

Of course there were economic problems before 1997! Did I even hint that there were not? We had Black Wednesday and its aftermath, but the fact remains that the Major government got the public finances back into apple-pie order, just in time for these damnable progressives to spend the next eleven years bringing us to virtual ruin.

Had we had a Tory government all this time we would still have had the banking crisis "that started in America", but I am confident that we would not also have the even greater problem of crushing public debt and a hugely bloated public sector.

You're just considering the public sector in isolation Besty - that's the problem. I'm not doubting that the public finances were in a good state in 1997, that's a pure simple fact upheld by reports from the O.E.C.D., World Bank and the rest of the fellows.

What I'm talking about is personal debt, private debt. This is a problem in addition to the problem of the public finances, and its roots lay before 1997.

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 5 55 pm

tjwmason wrote:

What I'm talking about is personal debt, private debt. This is a problem in addition to the problem of the public finances, and its roots lay before 1997.

So should the government dictate how much members of the public are allowed to borrow?

Posted: Tue 30 Jun 2009 10 22 pm

tjwmason wrote:

What I'm talking about is personal debt, private debt. This is a problem in addition to the problem of the public finances, and its roots lay before 1997.

And no one is disputing that, TJ. But while the roots may lie back there, the odious fruit is in the here and now. In addition, compounding the problem, the public finances are in a disgraceful mess, as I think you do not dispute? And that is entirely and indisputably the fault of Gordon Brown and the Labour government.... Wink

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

tjwmason wrote:

What I'm talking about is personal debt, private debt. This is a problem in addition to the problem of the public finances, and its roots lay before 1997.

And no one is disputing that, TJ. But while the roots may lie back there, the odious fruit is in the here and now. In addition, compounding the problem, the public finances are in a disgraceful mess, as I think you do not dispute? And that is entirely and indisputably the fault of Gordon Brown and the Labour government.... Wink

Which is precisely what I said before you told me that you could not agree with me...I'm confused.

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bulldog wrote:

tjwmason wrote:

What I'm talking about is personal debt, private debt. This is a problem in addition to the problem of the public finances, and its roots lay before 1997.

So should the government dictate how much members of the public are allowed to borrow?

Sigh.

Of course on the micro-scale the government should not be dictating individual lending decisions, however we do hold the government responsible for macro-economic stability and where a government changes regulations governing lending which essentially encourage the sort of reckless levels of personal debt which the country has...yes this is a failing of the government's economic policy.

But that won't wash with a libertarian anarchist will it?

Posted: Wed 1 Jul 2009 8 30 am

I quite agree, TJ. And labour governments in the past have regulated - perhaps even over-regulated - the overdrafts, personal loans and hire purchase arrangements available to the public.

Brown has failed to do so.

As I mentioned above, I don't remember "credit" being as freely available under the conservatives as it has been for the last decade or so - although the number of unsolicited begging letters from banks urging me to take advantage of their facilities has diminished somewhat of late!

This could be just a failure of memory ... but I don't think so

Posted: Wed 1 Jul 2009 11 06 am

tjwmason wrote:

Sigh.

lol! Oh it must be a drag TJ Laughing

tjwmason wrote:

But that won't wash with a libertarian anarchist will it?

Nope!